Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical response to Star Trek

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Thryduulf (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response to Star Trek

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant content fork, whose content is already included in articles for each film or TV series. Similar to the recently deleted articles for Harry Potter films, Chronicles of Narnia films, Adaminte Makan Abu, etc. –Dream out loud (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as the others: as the nom states, they are redundant content forks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete for the following reasons: The aggregated information included is much easier for users to find in this article than searching the individual article for each movie. Redundancy is moot. CyberTychoBrahe (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete and comment. From briefly cross-referencing some of the sections in the article with the corresponding main pages of the films, etc, the article does look like a needless content fork, although in an ideal world it would be nice if any additional information in this article not in the other articles could be transferred over before the big delete. -Well-rested ^Talk 10:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundancy should be avoided. People looking for criticism of a specific aspect of the franchise will look for it in the respective article. Sandstein 12:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.